Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Sat, 07 September 2013 00:01 UTC
Return-Path: <xvilajosana@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E6421E80BD for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1hZIstKPzEfu for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA6411E80F7 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kq13so3953234pab.11 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nxqlegSkxmSGH+brUSo5o03TqIv01KSKZFm3FgRFB/M=; b=Sa3skUqEmoQt+m1FliAklArzide6o0tCI3yu02XYbOIv/Dd741TRsFinRFVGfpw9KA 4IaKH1rOgvSWLtb19gCXqg4RAMSdPL/aq3ODAYkuQCwpafDDFcm6tF+7n2uMS3xAiC/M 6jOcl9LXYUVNhqiLfu4FBBVBFXwOUt8rINc+kboRc0qn5kckNwmB7C3D3nEsJH6X36n3 ZDPm5fV6VbrPCXijeBRf6B2yjY3dJlvTSFJoEyvmwqcsBtYD7gSCZZ/7HZTCOQNMEL/+ UQwZaaBQOclUQJTR3xKMbOfXeh7IOpK2oXiUtYM6L1471HSOLYkMX4bcQXRWgDYqLTRg TwXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmj0QSoi7V0tyDBBlqwW8liIv/aU3k+8LgVf8m1M4/NPeC+eR26SSNE1R1LyJ90KDCLVBSH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.102.1 with SMTP id fk1mr6801100pab.90.1378512089817; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.34.44 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALEMV4a=azY5MU00jNmcoek022gS=pUeXK1xVnucG+Zy6NTBOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_XeC7Z5hFxyHhFGqD0aFMcBn=iHzDfRq34sL9qPi2P4A@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4YN3rA2OXeAV1akOZhdQrMOQvhN0A+t6vsL9RPVV=VMnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA8Cx3ingeiMdr60zUfMMENiay-Nftv0nMFOTD7=YcKgwg@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4ZdgWAFMyA=FtRik96evup-qJPQfTcDQEu99sfC0xFwuQ@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84145CB61@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CALEMV4a=azY5MU00jNmcoek022gS=pUeXK1xVnucG+Zy6NTBOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:01:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CALEMV4a=DCXV9ra832-5zEtiD7moUmj6GYu7tiosDYsD5v4ObA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf18b1c6ead4904e5bfdbed"
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:01:43 -0000
Hi, I created the scratchpad section in the wiki to keep ideas https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/Home and added the flow content information here. https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/wiki/report_flow_contents have a nice weekend! X On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi Pascal, it is a good idea! > > I will collect that information and as Thomas put it at the wiki so we do > not lose it. > > :-) > X > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hello Xavi:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> At the call I mentioned we could use info on tracks and cells as well, >> probably on demand from the PCE.**** >> >> For instance, the PCE could observe energy levels over some cells for a >> while to make sure they are clean.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> What do you think?**** >> >> Pascal**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Xavier Vilajosana Guillen >> *Sent:* vendredi 6 septembre 2013 01:17 >> *To:* Thomas Watteyne >> *Cc:* 6tsch@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] report flow contents**** >> >> ** ** >> >> agreed!**** >> >> So the fields become:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> For each known neighbor:**** >> >> -ID**** >> >> -AVG RSSI in a running window**** >> >> -Latest RSSI**** >> >> -AVG LQI in a running window [optional]**** >> >> -Latest LQI [optional]**** >> >> -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor **** >> >> -Bundle: Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor**** >> >> -PDR per link [Optional -- or maybe best and worst PDR only]**** >> >> **** >> >> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category)*** >> * >> >> +(TLV objects)* **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -For each Queue:**** >> >> - Avg Queue length in a running window**** >> >> - Max Queue length in a running window (peak)**** >> >> - Current Queue length (?)**** >> >> - ASN of the oldest packet in the QUEUE?**** >> >> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category) >> **** >> >> +(TLV objects)* **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -Time source parent**** >> >> -ID**** >> >> -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window**** >> >> -Latest clock correction**** >> >> -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source >> parent)**** >> >> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category) >> **** >> >> +(TLV objects)* **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields in other categories)* >> *** >> >> +(TLV objects)* **** >> >> ** ** >> >> as regards to this:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> "Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn >> fields on/off, or triggered independently?"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I see it as CoAP Options, where a set of bytes can be used as "clever >> bitmap" to tell what options are there, the parsing will decode option by >> option and will read the fields. In that way any combination of fields is >> supported.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> would that work?**** >> >> X**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Watteyne < >> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >> >> Xavi,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Fantastic!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I believe PDR for each link might be too long to fit in a packet. While >> the mote will most likely keep that information, we could move that to the >> query flow, i.e. it is available to the PCE on-demand.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Would you agree that the number of links in a bundle belongs to the >> neighbor? Of maybe we want a "bundle" category?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In queuing, it might be interesting to see the age of the different >> packets, to be able to monitor latency.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> About LQI, there is no general consensus among vendors on what the >> definition is, or how exactly it is calculated. I would make it optional. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Also, it might be good to be able to add arbitrary fields to each >> category: neighbor, queue, time source neighbor.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn >> fields on/off, or triggered independently?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thomas**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Thomas, Diego,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I agree that LQI should be there as well. I update here the list with >> Thomas suggestions. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> For each known neighbor:**** >> >> -ID**** >> >> -AVG RSSI in a running window**** >> >> -Latest RSSI**** >> >> -AVG LQI in a running window**** >> >> -Latest LQI**** >> >> -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that >> neighbor)**** >> >> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Other fields**** >> >> -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor**** >> >> -For each link PDR**** >> >> -For each Queue:**** >> >> - Avg Queue length in a running window**** >> >> - Max Queue length in a running window (peak)**** >> >> - Current Queue length (?)**** >> >> -Time source parent**** >> >> -ID**** >> >> -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window**** >> >> -Latest clock correction**** >> >> -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source >> parent)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields)**** >> >> +(TLV objects)* **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Hope this makes sense.**** >> >> cheers! >> Xavi**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Watteyne < >> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >> >> *[renamed thread]***** >> >> ** ** >> >> Xavi,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> A few thoughts:**** >> >> - the counters (numTx, etc) will only be present for neighbors the node >> has communicate with, so they should be optional in the packet.**** >> >> - you have focused on the topological information (which I think is the >> right one). It might be useful to gather other data related to >> synchronization or queuing.**** >> >> - I couldn't agree more with your suggestion to make it extensible. This >> does mean that we will need to state somewhere that a device need to ignore >> silently fields it does not understand.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thomas**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:**** >> >> Hello, I guess that flows are getting defined and I started to think on >> the contents of the messages on that flows. Not sure if this is the right >> time or I am going way far..**** >> >> ** ** >> >> According to the previous discussion I assume that the five flows are:*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> ME-6TOP - Query Flow**** >> >> ME-6TOP - Action Flow**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 6TOP - ME - Report Flow**** >> >> 6TOP - ME - Event Flow**** >> >> 6TOP - ME - Request BW Flow**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'd like to start defining the content of the messages in the Report Flow: >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Report Flow: has to deal with the information that a node knows and >> has to be sent to the ME so the ME can compute the schedule among others. >> Here I list the information that we can know in a mote and can be used at >> the ME to compute the schedule (complete please if I miss something)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> For each known neighbor:**** >> >> -ID**** >> >> -AVG RSSI in a running window**** >> >> -Latest RSSI**** >> >> -Num TX packets**** >> >> -Num ACK packets**** >> >> -Num RX packets**** >> >> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Other fields**** >> >> -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor**** >> >> -For each link PDR**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Then we need to have some TLV like objects that can be used for >> ad-hoc/naive/other extensions of the reporting process. In that way we >> don't constraint the implementation of the scheduling alg. to that >> information.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> what do you think?**** >> >> X**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:* >> *** >> >> Hi all,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In this thread, we will continue the discussion about Confirmation >> message. Here is some background information.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Context: e.g.**** >> >> - node sends a report and want to know if the report is accepted., ** >> ** >> >> - ME sends a action request and want to know if/when the action taken. >> **** >> >> Options:**** >> >> (1) Nothing**** >> >> (2) Rely on transport mechanism (e.g. confirmable CoAP message)**** >> >> (3) App-level ACK type**** >> >> (4) Use different flow (i.e. action flow)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> IMHO, different control flow may have different requirement for >> confirmation message.**** >> >> (1) Action Flow, needs a App-level confirmation, like Succ/Fail**** >> >> (2) Query Flow, automatically has the confirmation, i.e. the message >> packet corresponding to a specific query.**** >> >> (3) Report Flow and Event Flow, option (1)-(3) are OK, but I prefer >> option (1) and (3), i.e. the confirmation message is an option, but if a >> confirmation message is needed, it should be App-level Ack, instead of >> transport layer confirmation, which will give 6top more flexibility.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> What do you think?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> Qin**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch**** >> >> ** ** >> > >
- [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- [6tsch] R: report flow contents Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand